Ibrahim, Y. (2008). The new risk communities: Social networking sites and risk. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics4(2): 245-253.

abstract only!

tho i have access to full text. it’s rather doom-heavy.

here’s the conclusion (emphasis added):

The popularity of social networking sites heralds the emergence of complicit risk communities where personal information becomes social capital which is traded and exchanged, and where there are also therapeutic and narcissistic elements, particularly with regard to the construction of self-image and identities. The culture of social networking sites thrives on the performative, on the one hand, and reciprocity and exchange, on the other. Hence the potential dangers and risks of willingly disclosing and displaying personal details become part of the architecture or code of these sites. Social networking sites then leverage on the resulting cultural conventions and communions in order to sustain themselves. The appropriation of new technologies by individuals in order to communicate, form new communities and to maintain existing relationships signifies new ways in which risk becomes embedded and encoded into our social practices, posing new ethical and legal challenges which inadvertently expand the landscape of risk.

"the officer went to Facebook.com…Not only did it help him identify Chiles, it also showed that Chiles and Gartner listed each other as friends, suggesting Gartner had lied to police. Chiles’ ticket for public urination: $145. Gartner’s ticket for obstructing justice: $195."

Cop snares college pals in own Web - Chicago Tribune (3 August 2006)

This is one of the first reported incidents in which Facebook was used to identify a person who broke the law (picked up from this JCMC article from 2009. More recently, a Facebook photo was used as partial evidence to arrest a man for attempted murder.

A detailed description of the categories of data that Facebook retains about its users, from last location, events (and RSVP status), emails (deleted and not) and alternative names to favourite quotes, friends, de-friends, pokes and “vanity”.

It comes from Austrian law student Max Schrems’ campaign to “make facebook more transparent”. He began using the service in 2008 and by 2011 there were 1,200 pages about his activity. 

See his file here.

Read more about it on Forbes (Feb 2012) and the NYT (Sept 2011).

Because of his campaign, Facebook now deletes anything put into its search field within six months and most of the rest within a year.

Request your own file here (option only available to users outside US and Canada).

from The New York Times, 9 Aug 2006.

"we shouldn’t forget the important role of specialists to contextualise and offer insights into what our data do, and maybe more importantly, don’t tell us."

Big data and the end of theory?

valuable social science perspective from @geoplace about Big Data on The Guardian.

"Privacy issues are an ongoing roar and generally do not receive the nuanced coverage that might inform consumers and the general public to make smarter decisions about which services they use and how."

In pursuit of the latest intel on the privacy issues surrounding the Big Data revolution, I contacted Alexander Howard, the Government 2.0 Correspondent for publisher O’Reilly Media. Many thanks to Kaitlin Thaney of Digital Science for making the introduction.

O’Reilly recently published their guide to Privacy and Big Data (Sept 2011), and Alexander was the moderator of the panel, If Data Wants to be Free, Is Big Privacy A Prison? at  Strata 2012 in March 2012 in California.

To what extent has the Google privacy policy change increased the general public’s interest in web privacy issues? How far does that awareness/interest extend (i.e., to other networks/services)?

The media coverage of the change, along with Google’s own notifications, has likely led to a marginal increase in awareness. I’d need to see research or polls to know whether that’s true with any certainty. Last year’s media firestorm over a tracking file in the iPhone or a progression of Facebook stories add to that. Honestly, however, there have been major data breaches from corporations and government agencies for years. Privacy issues are an ongoing roar and, in the context of so much other hype and media attention, generally do not receive the nuanced coverage that might inform consumers and the general public to make smarter decisions about which services they use and how.

What is Big Data and where does it become problematic with regards to privacy?

You can’t do better than [Strata Conference programme chair] Edd Dumbill’s primer.  

“Big data is data that exceeds the processing capacity of conventional database systems. The data is too big, moves too fast, or doesn’t fit the strictures of your database architectures. To gain value from this data, you must choose an alternative way to process it.”

How much does data really say about individuals? To what extent are corporations’ expectations of Big Data being met, and where do they fall?

It depends upon the data. Data that a doctor collects with biomarkers says quite a bit about your health. Data collected by geneticists may tell us even more about what to expect, and certainly predict what we’re at higher risk for later in life. Data collected from mobile devices over time can tell us where we’ve been, who we’ve communicated with and how often. Data from Web browsers, naturally, can tell us everything we’ve done in them, unless we make special efforts to remove it. Data from retail sites can tell us what we buy — and what we might like to purchase. Data from financial companies, credit agencies and information brokers can reveal someone’s entire fiscal history. Academic data can show how much a student is reading, graduate student is producing or what influence a professor’s papers are in a given research community. The examples are nearly endless. Data can say quite a lot, though one has to be very careful to verify quality and balance it with human expertise and intuition.

Most corporations are still figuring out how to make data work for them; that need is in part why our Strata Conference has proven to be so popular.

How different are the privacy issues raised by Big Data different from what’s come before in terms of government and corporate surveillance? In terms of interpersonal surveillance?

Machine learning, big data and massive processing power can find patterns in ways previous data visualization or processing platforms could not. Look at what Palantir is doing for the U.S. intelligence community for one example, or how they’re helping to detect Medicare fraud for another. Given enough data, intelligence and power, corporations and government can connect dots in ways that only previously existed in science fiction. Many of them, however, are still struggling to do so.

What is more likely to affect a change in organisational data collection of personal information: public interest, government regulation or something else?

Both of those factors will have an effect. Data retention laws could play a major role, as could regulation that comes out of them. It’s not clear how well those entrusted with the public interest understand the issues and implications here, in terms of the risks and substantial rewards that exist with big data. Any action by government or other entities should weigh the potential benefits of data for the public good with potential harms.

Technologist and search engineer Stephen Wolfram analysed the substantial data (some might even call it “Big Data”) he’s collected about his online behaviour - email, keystrokes, calendar activity, phone calls etc - over the last decade (and change).

It’s amazing how much it’s possible to figure out by analyzing the various kinds of data I’ve kept.

I propose that this is one example of one slice of his online self. Wolfram’s personal analysis offers useful insights - the colour to the play by play. I wonder what someone who looks at this with no knowledge of him sees, and what assumptions the disinterested party would draw about who he is.

I don’t know if we will all routinely collect personal data like this in the future, as Wolfram contends, but I already do use many of my online expressions as personal archives.

What’s more interesting about this than the explicit plug for Wolfram Alpha’s data analysis capabilities is that it’s an eyeball into the kinds of datasets that companies, governments and other data collectors use to define us and predict our behaviours.

via Roo Reynolds’ Tinyletter (which directs the HT to @diemkay)

an O’Reilly joint, published in Sept 2011. A good primer on the issues about privacy as they currently stand with relation to the data-driven digital world we currently occupy.

Currently chewing over Chapter 2: The Right To Privacy in the Digital Age, which covers the cultural and contextual variations on privacy interpretations (case studies: US and Europe) - and how these conflict when trying to regulate the digital space.

Two quotes on this:

“In general, the American view of privacy is focused on the home and on the person,” and the right to be “left alone” and free from intrusion.

“The European concept of a right to privacy is centered round preserving the individual’s honor and dignity in the public sphere,” which translates into a greater right over personal information and how it’s presented in the public sphere.

To summarise, the authors say:

How we view and value privacy is dependent on a host of influences that include our history, culture, and social norms. Added to that, age, ethnicity, and sex may influence our expectation of privacy.

makes things complicated, no?

HT @kaythaney

data professionals need shorthand ways to easily think about the societal impact of their work

Coverage of Strata 2012 from Jim Adler, who sat on the panel, ‘If Data Wants to Be Free, is Privacy a Prison?

Good list of recent gaffes, interesting frameworks, outlines of privacy perils.

HT @kaythaney

"…if you use Facebook, and your friends sign up for social applications, your name and details could appear in unexpected places"

Luluvise’s date-rating site shows where your Facebook data can end up

from The Guardian on 8 Feb 2012.